Re: Newt's phone calls

At 02:48 PM 1/14/97 -0800, you wrote:
>It is also possible that somewhere in the chain of information between
>mom&pop, the media, and us, the distinction between "cordless phone"
>and cellular phone.  I gather it was a conference call that was 
>intercepted.  All it takes is one participant using a cordless phone in 
>range of one scanner, and the whole conversation is compromised.

The congressman (Boehner? from Ohio) whose cellphone was "eavesdropped"
stated today that he was parked in the lot of a Waffle House in Lake City
FL.  The couple said that they just happened to be driving by when they
overheard and began taping the conversation.

I have a problem with making it illegal to listen to parts of the
electromagnetic spectrum.  Seems sort of unnatural.  Maybe they will decide
that people who can see the color green will go to jail next ;-)
Technological solutions are much more elegant.  Of course, they are not
nearly as sexy as legal remedies (I can't wait to see if the congressman who
gave it to the Times is indicted!)

       Clay

*******************************************************
Clay Olbon			    olbon@ix.netcom.com
sys-admin, engineer, programmer, statistitian, etc.
**********************************************tanstaafl

At 7:07 PM -0800 1/14/97, Eric Murray wrote:
>Clay Olbon II writes:
>> I have a problem with making it illegal to listen to parts of the
>> electromagnetic spectrum.  Seems sort of unnatural.
>
>I think that blowing your mouth off about what you've heard
>by scanning cellular traffic is what's illegal.  Or more illegal
>than merely listening anyhow.

The 1935 communication act made it illegal to pass on what you had heard
when listening to certain radio services.  Listening was OK.  Telling
others wasn't.


-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bill Frantz       | Client in California, POP3 | Periwinkle -- Consulting
(408)356-8506     | in Pittsburgh, Packets in  | 16345 Englewood Ave.
frantz@netcom.com | Pakistan. - me             | Los Gatos, CA 95032, USA

On Wed, 15 Jan 1997, Bill Frantz wrote:

> At 7:07 PM -0800 1/14/97, Eric Murray wrote:

> The 1935 communication act made it illegal to pass on what you had heard
> when listening to certain radio services.  Listening was OK.  Telling
> others wasn't.
> 
	A more recent act made it illegal to monitor celular frequencies, 
	and to make equipement that receives or could easily be 
	modified to receive cellular frequencies.

Sarah.
==============================================================================
Sarah L. Green          Hey, I never claimed to be                >>osprey<<
Madison, AL  (USA)        a genius  nor a typist           greens@hiwaay.net 
==============================================================================

Sarah L. Green wrote:
> On Wed, 15 Jan 1997, Bill Frantz wrote:
> > At 7:07 PM -0800 1/14/97, Eric Murray wrote:
> > The 1935 communication act made it illegal to pass on what you had heard
> > when listening to certain radio services.  Listening was OK.  Telling
> > others wasn't.

>         A more recent act made it illegal to monitor celular frequencies,
>         and to make equipement that receives or could easily be
>         modified to receive cellular frequencies.

Scanner manufacturers have been getting around a lot of this by putting
ever more of the scanner's intelligence on EEPROM or flash chips, and
providing a computer interface to the scanner.

Software to do the rest can be gotten thru the web, or thru addresses
in 2600 or 411 magazine. I'm getting anxious to get a new scanner that
can follow the cellular hopping, ditto for police using the new trunked
systems that also hop frequencies, ditto for decoding digital, and for
decoding other common scrambling like the crap that Motorola puts out.

On Tue, 14 Jan 1997, Clay Olbon II wrote:

> The congressman (Boehner? from Ohio) whose cellphone was "eavesdropped"

A woman on the radio ABC news this morning said,
"Congressman...BONER?...Bahner is reportidly..." My guess is that someone
spelt it incorrectly on her sheet. ;)

> I have a problem with making it illegal to listen to parts of the
> electromagnetic spectrum.  Seems sort of unnatural.  Maybe they will decide
> that people who can see the color green will go to jail next ;-)
> Technological solutions are much more elegant.  Of course, they are not
> nearly as sexy as legal remedies (I can't wait to see if the congressman who
> gave it to the Times is indicted!)

Seems like a good issue to site when trying to push remailers, eh? :)

Clay Olbon II writes:
> 
> The congressman (Boehner? from Ohio) whose cellphone was "eavesdropped"
> stated today that he was parked in the lot of a Waffle House in Lake City
> FL.  The couple said that they just happened to be driving by when they
> overheard and began taping the conversation.

Interesting.  In California, operating a scanner while driving is illegal.
Of course it was probably the passenger running the scanner.

I've always wanted to scan cell-phone callers while driving next to them
on 101.  Even in Silicon Valley it'd be pretty wierd to have a sinister
looking guy in the car next to you pointing a black box with an antenna
at you...

> I have a problem with making it illegal to listen to parts of the
> electromagnetic spectrum.  Seems sort of unnatural.

I think that blowing your mouth off about what you've heard
by scanning cellular traffic is what's illegal.  Or more illegal
than merely listening anyhow.

>  Maybe they will decide
> that people who can see the color green will go to jail next ;-)
> Technological solutions are much more elegant.  Of course, they are not
> nearly as sexy as legal remedies (I can't wait to see if the congressman who
> gave it to the Times is indicted!)

Given that they've just pissed on some seriously powerful people I'd
expect that the fools who made the tape and gave it to the Democratic
congresscritter and then HAD A NEWS CONFERENCE about it are going to
be in some deep shit.


-- 
Eric Murray  ericm@lne.com  ericm@motorcycle.com  http://www.lne.com/ericm
PGP keyid:E03F65E5 fingerprint:50 B0 A2 4C 7D 86 FC 03  92 E8 AC E6 7E 27 29 AF

Eric Murray wrote:
 
> Given that they've just pissed on some seriously powerful people I'd
> expect that the fools who made the tape and gave it to the Democratic
> congresscritter and then HAD A NEWS CONFERENCE about it are going to
> be in some deep shit.

  Undoubtedly, they will be in much deeper shit than the criminal who
broke the laws he was sworn to uphold.
  Power Rules! (Is this redundant?)

On Tue, 14 Jan 1997, Eric Murray wrote:

> Clay Olbon II writes:
> > 
> > The congressman (Boehner? from Ohio) whose cellphone was "eavesdropped"
> > stated today that he was parked in the lot of a Waffle House in Lake City
> > FL.  The couple said that they just happened to be driving by when they
> > overheard and began taping the conversation.
> 
> Interesting.  In California, operating a scanner while driving is illegal.
> Of course it was probably the passenger running the scanner.

  Actually in Florida its illegal to even have a scanner in your car!
These folks have broken several state and federal laws, as well as the
congressman who leaked it to the newspapers instead of turning it over to
the head of the Ethics committe as he should have. Everyone involved here
is, or should be, in deep yogurt.

  I don't like the laws they passed, but since they passed them I want to
see them enforce them to the full extent posible. Then maybe people will
start to wonder why the transmission wasn't encrypted. Which also leads to
another question. How much information is in the clear from congressmen
and government employees who are clueless about the security of their
cellphones, cordless phones, etc?

  Brian


----
  www.eskimo.com/~nexus      Nexus Computing     ftp.eskimo.com/~nexus

Brian Lane wrote:
 
>   I don't like the laws they passed, but since they passed them I want to
> see them enforce them to the full extent posible. Then maybe people will
> start to wonder why the transmission wasn't encrypted. Which also leads to
> another question. How much information is in the clear from congressmen
> and government employees who are clueless about the security of their
> cellphones, cordless phones, etc?

  The fact is that the transmission 'was' encrypted. While this fact
isn't
being 'reported', it is causing no small amount of consternation in 
certain circles in Washington.

Eric Murray wrote:
> Clay Olbon II writes:

> Interesting.  In California, operating a scanner while driving is illegal.
> Of course it was probably the passenger running the scanner.
> I've always wanted to scan cell-phone callers while driving next to them
> on 101.  Even in Silicon Valley it'd be pretty wierd to have a sinister
> looking guy in the car next to you pointing a black box with an antenna
> at you...

My scanner looks like a cellular phone, hence, nobody has ever gotten
suspicious.